OK, so we’re going to keep it rolling here today with the next name on our countdown of the 50 most famous baseball players of the last 50 years. And as special offer, we’re sending this one out to everybody as a free preview. But from here on out, these will only go to paid subscribers, so hoping you’ll sign up! And as an added incentive, here’s 20% off!
My father didn’t give two s*** about much growing up. He’d experienced a lot (and grown up under men who’d experienced even more). Aside from church, there were no sacred cows. Ran against the herd his whole life. And … God, did he LOVE the Dodgers. Being a Dodger fan was chutzpah. Lasorda was just Blue enough for his hardcore fandom. And he LOVED Garvey for what he did for the Dodgers. A Popeye forearmed metronome. Mr. Clean. All of it. Stuff off the field? Registered ZERO. Like Jackie, Drysdale, Campy, Duke, PeeWee, Red, Sandy, Vince, Lasorda, Dusty … Garvey is a Dodger.
I know the general consensus is that many Gold Glove awards in the era before sabermetric-worthy defensive metrics came on the scene were fool's gold, often given to guys perceived as great OFFENSIVE players at their positions rather than for their elite glovework, but can anybody explain how Garvey won FOUR Gold Gloves if he was as bad defensively (especially his throwing arm) as people say? I was too young (and living in an AL city) at the time to remember first-hand how he was defensively on a regularly basis from 1974-77, but was he THAT bad? Who should have won those Gold Gloves? Maybe Hernandez in '76 and '77?
Garvey never missed a game and had sure hands so he routinely led league in putouts. Again, his never missing a game helped his other stats look better. Example in 75 he was 3rd in assists - 21 behind the leader. Worse in 1974. He had less that 75 assists. That was a 5th place finish. The leader had 102. Garvey also routinely missing from DP top lists
Joe Torre would have been a better 1974 choice. Willie Montanez for 75
Haven’t looked at other 2 years, but you get drift
Garvey wouldn’t throw the ball - that’s why low assists and DP totals.
Bunt at Garvey - he would take the safe out at first
One thing about Steve Garvey that I always found admirable despite his naked over ambition and the hypocrisy of his sex life and the squeaky clean image that he sought to project. The 1984 San Diego Padres were the first team from that franchise that made it to the World Series and had some memorable moments, including beating the cubs in the NLCS in 1984. 2nd baseman Alan Wiggins, an Afro-American player, was Garvey's teammate and a central player on the team. A speedster, top of the order type. Years later, Wiggins succumbed to drug addiction, was forced out of baseball and died of AIDS at a time when that disease carried a heavy social stigma. In fact, only one member of the 1984 Padres attended his funeral: Steve Garvey. Garvey also attended the funeral of another Afro-American player, Curt Flood, who was also a pariah to the game and had his own substance abuse issues that contributed to his premature death. Obviously, I cannot discern Garvey's motives but it seems Garvey attended those funerals to pay respect and remember the dignity of those two players, both of whom the rest of baseball discarded after they no longer had any use for them. In my opinion, that is touching and does reflect a certain level of timeless character and class on the part of Steve Garvey. P.S. I love these deep dives too. Joe Posnanski is a brilliant student of character and the human experience.
How crazy was the Hall of Fame standard for First Basemen of the late 20th century? It took Jeff Bagwell and his 80 WAR 7 ballots to secure election to the HOF. Not only did Bagwell have 80 WAR but a glance of his career shows one of the most amazingly productive hitters in MLB history. And yet it took seven ballots for him to be elected to the HOF.
Here is an article about Bagwell leading up to his seventh HOF ballot
Observe that the "case against Bagwell" is junk. And this is my complaint. Once a player fails to win HOF status, people create junk reasons to justify the snub. The irony being now that Bagwell is in the HOF we can't believe it took seven votes to get him in! Bagwell was a crazy good baseball player.
I don't think Garvey merits the HOF solely because his very good years were not good enough to overcome his lack of key milestone accomplishments. But he was very good and there is no need to dump on the guy and create junk reasons for his HOF snub. He, like Mattingly and Guidry and even Munson, were great players who fell short of the HOF.
The problem is every so often the HOF leaks in a very good, but not exceptional, player who did not meet the key milestones. So why that player and not the other very good ones? We don't know. And then we get the junk arguments about why the very good non-HOF players do not deserve the HOF.
In retrospect, some of the comments from his teammates don’t reflect well on them at all. It does seem they were as much jealousy driven as anything else.
Garvey falls into a category of both being overrated and underrated. I do remember hating seeing him come up against my favorite team with runners on base. He was a line-drive machine who regularly hit the ball in play and had enough power to break the game open. His drive for 200 hits and to play every game isn’t a negative. Goals are good things to have. If Garvey came up in today’s game, would he have been driven to lead the league in OBP instead of hits?
A couple or three items worked against Garvey making the HOF. His home park, and beginning his career in the early ‘70s, which was an offensively depressed time. It was no surprise his power ticked up in the later ‘70s as offense overall began to tick up. Ultimately, though, what prevented Garvey from making the HOF was he began to fade after age-31. Normal age-related decline in the pre-PEDs era. He could still hit, but not quite at the same level as before. That cost him a chance at 3,000 hits and automatic entry.
I don’t view him as a HOFer today, although the fame aspect is a point in his favor.
I don't think it's true that a drive for 200 hits couldn't be negative, if it was leading him to try bunting for hits in situations where that wasn't the right move. And I think this is what his teammates were picking up on. If he had an, I don't know, 35-40% chance of getting on base with a bunt, then he's making an out 60-65% of the time, and the other times he's only making it to first base by definition. It doesn't take many extra base hits to make swinging the bat better than bunting, even if one ends up with fewer total hits.
I don't think trying to maximize one's OBP is comparable. The main way to maximize OBP is to not swing at bad pitches. Swinging at good pitches maximizes good outcomes across the board: not just hits but also extra-base hits. Giving up the chance of extra-base hits in order to increase the number of singles is a much more dubious benefit.
When I was in fourth grade, we had a music teacher in our elementary school who said that EVERYONE should be in the choir. She was a spectacular teacher, and everyone loved her, so we did indeed all sign up. The problem was that my voice prematurely decided to start changing right before our big concert accompanying the city (a small suburb) symphony orchestra.
Before the concert, she took me aside and asked me just to lip synch. I'm no Steve Garvey (though I can keep a tune better than he can, but at that time I couldn't control what register it might come out in). I had no problem agreeing.
Only the choir sang three songs. Two of them were on the stage with the orchestra. The third was the National Anthem. Okay, no problem with the first verse. But we were also scheduled to sing the fourth verse, the one that starts "And thus be it ever where free men shall stand". And the dirty little secret was that I was about the only person in the choir who had memorized the words to it. So she was left with the dilemma, and I think the embarrassment, that she had to come to me right before we sang it, and ask me to do my best to sing it so others could hear the words. That wasn't quite the last time I sang in a public forum, but it's the last time I sang in a choir.
The commenters here who are adamant that Garvey was a great player, some even suggesting he belongs in the Hall of Fame, demonstrate how famous Garvey was/is.
Today, we have the data. We know how good he was. He was so famous in the 70s and 80s people remain convinced he was great 40 years later.
I just realized something, looking at recent pictures of Steve Garvey. He must have had a long lost brother who played in the California Angels. This young man was a switching hitting second baseman. His first three years were in short season A ball. In 1971 he played for the Bend Rainbows with a slash line of 285/385/363 for an OPS of 748. In 1972 he played for the Walla Walla Islanders. Now, Walla Walla is south of Spokane, Washington hundreds of miles from the Pacific Ocean. They were called the Islanders because they were an affiliate of AAA Hawaii Islanders. His slash line was 325/389/377 for an OPS. In 1973 he was promoted to the AA El Paso Sun Kings and the light seemed to turn on. In 6 games the slash line was 562/588/938 for an OPS of 1526. Alas, turning the pivot on a double play in the last game resulted a collision with the baserunner and a torn right rotator cuff. That effectively ended his baseball career. The Steve Garvey look alike? Kurt Russell, significant other of Goldie Hawn. Truth is once again even stranger than fiction.
He’s a buffoon and a hypocrite with zero political experience and no real reasons to be elected other than he likely thinks it would be impressive to be called “Senator.”
Meeting a hypocritical dolt is not required for vitriol. Or can we only admire those we have not met? Or is that too much as well? Must remain neutral!
Because he has no platform, no experience, no ideas and yet wants to be a Senator and tout his fidelity to his current wife while ignoring the number of children he had out of wedlock while professing to be holier than thou. He is a hypocrite who lacks th3e credentials to be lected dog catcher, let alone Senator. And hje can't even say whether he would vote for Trump a third time when asked point blank in a recent debate.
"If not for the numerous lawsuits that revealed Garvey’s many imperfections—which included numerous paternity claims and testimony from his own kids saying that they didn’t want to see him—Garvey might be in the Hall of Fame." And if Pete Rose wasn't unintelligent, if Roger Clemens didn't like underage women and if Barry Bonds wasn't a first-class a-hole, all three would be in the Hall of Fame as well. Garvey is a bigger phony than Tommy Lasorda, and that's saying something.
Steve Garvey, as a sophomore was a starter for Michigan State at defensive back. He made 30 tackles and got his letter. His freshman year he was not eligible to play but was the scout team quarterback. He was up against the Bubba Smith led defense. At the end of the year Bubba was drafted number one in the NFL. Other Michigan State first rounders that year included running back Clint Jones, the second pick in the draft, linebacker George Webster as the fifth pick and wide receiver Gene Washington was taken 8th. That meant that Michigan State provided 4 of the first 8 picks.
One of my former law partners worked with Bubba to keep him academically eligible. All those things teammates said about Garvey, she said the opposite about Bubba. She was devastated when he died.
Tragically, not only was his life cut short, but he also suffered from CTE from his football days. At the time of his death he was displaying CTE related cognitive impairment. I understood he was a great football player but remember him best for his role as Hightower in the Police Academy franchise. A gentle giant with a fu Manchu and one of the all-time best smiles in Hollywood.
Do I have this correct? The last four Hall of Fame National League First Basemen are Todd Helton, Jeff Bagwell, Willie Stargell and Tony Perez.
If so, then no NL First Baseman who debuted between 1965 and 1990 is in the Hall of Fame. That a lot of years and a lot of players who did not fit the Hall of Fame expectation of a First Basemen.
And McGriff points to the skewed HOF standard applied to players of the late 20th century. He was not elected by BBWAA! He received 20% of the ballot in 2010 and stayed at the level until his last ballot in 2019 where he received 40% support. He had 15 seasons with 250 or more total bases, 8 seasons with 100+ RBI and 10 seasons with 30+ home runs. But he did not have 3000 hits or 500 home runs and he was not associated with the group of super sluggers like Bagwell or McGwire, even though McGriff had more home runs and RBI than Bagwell (granted Bagwell was a run producing freak with an incredible rate of both runs scored and RBI)
I hear you, and I don't entirely disagree, but you can apply similar standards and find even bigger gaps over other periods of time.
For instance, there was no Hall of Fame American League first baseman between Hank Greenberg, who made his debut in 1930, and Harmon Killebrew, the latter of whom didn't play a game at first base until 1960. That's 30 years.
One might even be less generous and say Killebrew doesn't count at all because he played six years in the big leagues before he ever even played first base. If that's the case, you have to reach from Greenberg's 1930 debut to Eddie Murray in 1977. 47 years!
I would assume that you run into the problem with first basemen that very few of them played there because they were exceptional defenders at the position, but the opposite. So only the very best hitters are going to make the Hall from first base, and very few players are the very best hitters! Designated Hitter is an even more extreme version of this and would see even fewer people inducted, which I think has been true so far.
Geek and a super phony facade of a man what a shame! ⚾️
Steve Garvey wanted to be Captain America, but he turned out to be Homelander.
My father didn’t give two s*** about much growing up. He’d experienced a lot (and grown up under men who’d experienced even more). Aside from church, there were no sacred cows. Ran against the herd his whole life. And … God, did he LOVE the Dodgers. Being a Dodger fan was chutzpah. Lasorda was just Blue enough for his hardcore fandom. And he LOVED Garvey for what he did for the Dodgers. A Popeye forearmed metronome. Mr. Clean. All of it. Stuff off the field? Registered ZERO. Like Jackie, Drysdale, Campy, Duke, PeeWee, Red, Sandy, Vince, Lasorda, Dusty … Garvey is a Dodger.
Ok
I know the general consensus is that many Gold Glove awards in the era before sabermetric-worthy defensive metrics came on the scene were fool's gold, often given to guys perceived as great OFFENSIVE players at their positions rather than for their elite glovework, but can anybody explain how Garvey won FOUR Gold Gloves if he was as bad defensively (especially his throwing arm) as people say? I was too young (and living in an AL city) at the time to remember first-hand how he was defensively on a regularly basis from 1974-77, but was he THAT bad? Who should have won those Gold Gloves? Maybe Hernandez in '76 and '77?
I don't know but I know one thing. Garvey NEVER threw out anyone on a sacrifice anywhere but at first base.
Garvey never missed a game and had sure hands so he routinely led league in putouts. Again, his never missing a game helped his other stats look better. Example in 75 he was 3rd in assists - 21 behind the leader. Worse in 1974. He had less that 75 assists. That was a 5th place finish. The leader had 102. Garvey also routinely missing from DP top lists
Joe Torre would have been a better 1974 choice. Willie Montanez for 75
Haven’t looked at other 2 years, but you get drift
Garvey wouldn’t throw the ball - that’s why low assists and DP totals.
Bunt at Garvey - he would take the safe out at first
Timid fielder
One thing about Steve Garvey that I always found admirable despite his naked over ambition and the hypocrisy of his sex life and the squeaky clean image that he sought to project. The 1984 San Diego Padres were the first team from that franchise that made it to the World Series and had some memorable moments, including beating the cubs in the NLCS in 1984. 2nd baseman Alan Wiggins, an Afro-American player, was Garvey's teammate and a central player on the team. A speedster, top of the order type. Years later, Wiggins succumbed to drug addiction, was forced out of baseball and died of AIDS at a time when that disease carried a heavy social stigma. In fact, only one member of the 1984 Padres attended his funeral: Steve Garvey. Garvey also attended the funeral of another Afro-American player, Curt Flood, who was also a pariah to the game and had his own substance abuse issues that contributed to his premature death. Obviously, I cannot discern Garvey's motives but it seems Garvey attended those funerals to pay respect and remember the dignity of those two players, both of whom the rest of baseball discarded after they no longer had any use for them. In my opinion, that is touching and does reflect a certain level of timeless character and class on the part of Steve Garvey. P.S. I love these deep dives too. Joe Posnanski is a brilliant student of character and the human experience.
I love these deep dives so much.
How crazy was the Hall of Fame standard for First Basemen of the late 20th century? It took Jeff Bagwell and his 80 WAR 7 ballots to secure election to the HOF. Not only did Bagwell have 80 WAR but a glance of his career shows one of the most amazingly productive hitters in MLB history. And yet it took seven ballots for him to be elected to the HOF.
Here is an article about Bagwell leading up to his seventh HOF ballot
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/will-jeff-bagwell-get-in-to-the-hall-of-fame-the-case-for-and-against-him/
Observe that the "case against Bagwell" is junk. And this is my complaint. Once a player fails to win HOF status, people create junk reasons to justify the snub. The irony being now that Bagwell is in the HOF we can't believe it took seven votes to get him in! Bagwell was a crazy good baseball player.
I don't think Garvey merits the HOF solely because his very good years were not good enough to overcome his lack of key milestone accomplishments. But he was very good and there is no need to dump on the guy and create junk reasons for his HOF snub. He, like Mattingly and Guidry and even Munson, were great players who fell short of the HOF.
The problem is every so often the HOF leaks in a very good, but not exceptional, player who did not meet the key milestones. So why that player and not the other very good ones? We don't know. And then we get the junk arguments about why the very good non-HOF players do not deserve the HOF.
Say what you want about Steve, he definitely had a charitable side. Just think about all of the unwed mothers he helped get their start.
In retrospect, some of the comments from his teammates don’t reflect well on them at all. It does seem they were as much jealousy driven as anything else.
Garvey falls into a category of both being overrated and underrated. I do remember hating seeing him come up against my favorite team with runners on base. He was a line-drive machine who regularly hit the ball in play and had enough power to break the game open. His drive for 200 hits and to play every game isn’t a negative. Goals are good things to have. If Garvey came up in today’s game, would he have been driven to lead the league in OBP instead of hits?
A couple or three items worked against Garvey making the HOF. His home park, and beginning his career in the early ‘70s, which was an offensively depressed time. It was no surprise his power ticked up in the later ‘70s as offense overall began to tick up. Ultimately, though, what prevented Garvey from making the HOF was he began to fade after age-31. Normal age-related decline in the pre-PEDs era. He could still hit, but not quite at the same level as before. That cost him a chance at 3,000 hits and automatic entry.
I don’t view him as a HOFer today, although the fame aspect is a point in his favor.
I don't think it's true that a drive for 200 hits couldn't be negative, if it was leading him to try bunting for hits in situations where that wasn't the right move. And I think this is what his teammates were picking up on. If he had an, I don't know, 35-40% chance of getting on base with a bunt, then he's making an out 60-65% of the time, and the other times he's only making it to first base by definition. It doesn't take many extra base hits to make swinging the bat better than bunting, even if one ends up with fewer total hits.
I don't think trying to maximize one's OBP is comparable. The main way to maximize OBP is to not swing at bad pitches. Swinging at good pitches maximizes good outcomes across the board: not just hits but also extra-base hits. Giving up the chance of extra-base hits in order to increase the number of singles is a much more dubious benefit.
When I was in fourth grade, we had a music teacher in our elementary school who said that EVERYONE should be in the choir. She was a spectacular teacher, and everyone loved her, so we did indeed all sign up. The problem was that my voice prematurely decided to start changing right before our big concert accompanying the city (a small suburb) symphony orchestra.
Before the concert, she took me aside and asked me just to lip synch. I'm no Steve Garvey (though I can keep a tune better than he can, but at that time I couldn't control what register it might come out in). I had no problem agreeing.
Only the choir sang three songs. Two of them were on the stage with the orchestra. The third was the National Anthem. Okay, no problem with the first verse. But we were also scheduled to sing the fourth verse, the one that starts "And thus be it ever where free men shall stand". And the dirty little secret was that I was about the only person in the choir who had memorized the words to it. So she was left with the dilemma, and I think the embarrassment, that she had to come to me right before we sang it, and ask me to do my best to sing it so others could hear the words. That wasn't quite the last time I sang in a public forum, but it's the last time I sang in a choir.
The commenters here who are adamant that Garvey was a great player, some even suggesting he belongs in the Hall of Fame, demonstrate how famous Garvey was/is.
Today, we have the data. We know how good he was. He was so famous in the 70s and 80s people remain convinced he was great 40 years later.
I just realized something, looking at recent pictures of Steve Garvey. He must have had a long lost brother who played in the California Angels. This young man was a switching hitting second baseman. His first three years were in short season A ball. In 1971 he played for the Bend Rainbows with a slash line of 285/385/363 for an OPS of 748. In 1972 he played for the Walla Walla Islanders. Now, Walla Walla is south of Spokane, Washington hundreds of miles from the Pacific Ocean. They were called the Islanders because they were an affiliate of AAA Hawaii Islanders. His slash line was 325/389/377 for an OPS. In 1973 he was promoted to the AA El Paso Sun Kings and the light seemed to turn on. In 6 games the slash line was 562/588/938 for an OPS of 1526. Alas, turning the pivot on a double play in the last game resulted a collision with the baserunner and a torn right rotator cuff. That effectively ended his baseball career. The Steve Garvey look alike? Kurt Russell, significant other of Goldie Hawn. Truth is once again even stranger than fiction.
He’s a buffoon and a hypocrite with zero political experience and no real reasons to be elected other than he likely thinks it would be impressive to be called “Senator.”
Such vitriol towards a person you most likely never met.
Meeting a hypocritical dolt is not required for vitriol. Or can we only admire those we have not met? Or is that too much as well? Must remain neutral!
Maybe just not pass judgment on people we don't know but I was more curious about why?
Because he has no platform, no experience, no ideas and yet wants to be a Senator and tout his fidelity to his current wife while ignoring the number of children he had out of wedlock while professing to be holier than thou. He is a hypocrite who lacks th3e credentials to be lected dog catcher, let alone Senator. And hje can't even say whether he would vote for Trump a third time when asked point blank in a recent debate.
"If not for the numerous lawsuits that revealed Garvey’s many imperfections—which included numerous paternity claims and testimony from his own kids saying that they didn’t want to see him—Garvey might be in the Hall of Fame." And if Pete Rose wasn't unintelligent, if Roger Clemens didn't like underage women and if Barry Bonds wasn't a first-class a-hole, all three would be in the Hall of Fame as well. Garvey is a bigger phony than Tommy Lasorda, and that's saying something.
Phony? So you know him?
Steve Garvey, as a sophomore was a starter for Michigan State at defensive back. He made 30 tackles and got his letter. His freshman year he was not eligible to play but was the scout team quarterback. He was up against the Bubba Smith led defense. At the end of the year Bubba was drafted number one in the NFL. Other Michigan State first rounders that year included running back Clint Jones, the second pick in the draft, linebacker George Webster as the fifth pick and wide receiver Gene Washington was taken 8th. That meant that Michigan State provided 4 of the first 8 picks.
One of my former law partners worked with Bubba to keep him academically eligible. All those things teammates said about Garvey, she said the opposite about Bubba. She was devastated when he died.
Tragically, not only was his life cut short, but he also suffered from CTE from his football days. At the time of his death he was displaying CTE related cognitive impairment. I understood he was a great football player but remember him best for his role as Hightower in the Police Academy franchise. A gentle giant with a fu Manchu and one of the all-time best smiles in Hollywood.
Do I have this correct? The last four Hall of Fame National League First Basemen are Todd Helton, Jeff Bagwell, Willie Stargell and Tony Perez.
If so, then no NL First Baseman who debuted between 1965 and 1990 is in the Hall of Fame. That a lot of years and a lot of players who did not fit the Hall of Fame expectation of a First Basemen.
Depends a bit on how we define "National League first basemen."
Does Fred McGriff count? Four of his five All-Star appearances were for the National League side.
And McGriff points to the skewed HOF standard applied to players of the late 20th century. He was not elected by BBWAA! He received 20% of the ballot in 2010 and stayed at the level until his last ballot in 2019 where he received 40% support. He had 15 seasons with 250 or more total bases, 8 seasons with 100+ RBI and 10 seasons with 30+ home runs. But he did not have 3000 hits or 500 home runs and he was not associated with the group of super sluggers like Bagwell or McGwire, even though McGriff had more home runs and RBI than Bagwell (granted Bagwell was a run producing freak with an incredible rate of both runs scored and RBI)
I hear you, and I don't entirely disagree, but you can apply similar standards and find even bigger gaps over other periods of time.
For instance, there was no Hall of Fame American League first baseman between Hank Greenberg, who made his debut in 1930, and Harmon Killebrew, the latter of whom didn't play a game at first base until 1960. That's 30 years.
One might even be less generous and say Killebrew doesn't count at all because he played six years in the big leagues before he ever even played first base. If that's the case, you have to reach from Greenberg's 1930 debut to Eddie Murray in 1977. 47 years!
I would assume that you run into the problem with first basemen that very few of them played there because they were exceptional defenders at the position, but the opposite. So only the very best hitters are going to make the Hall from first base, and very few players are the very best hitters! Designated Hitter is an even more extreme version of this and would see even fewer people inducted, which I think has been true so far.
Fair point. I would group him with Bagwell as he got his NL start in 1991
I think there's a steroid-shaped hole there. McGwire would certainly be in, for instance.
its easy to say that McGwire would be in, but would he be in if he didn't take steroids- I think that's a fair question..
Same with Palmeiro. It also makes a bit of a case for Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly and Will Clark as they were the best of that era.